All Episodes
Previous Next
May 9, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
May 9, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back again, folks.
Again, we come to you from Los Angeles today on the EIB Network.
Been out here since Friday.
Have had a fabulous time.
I love it in California.
I've always lived out here for three and a half years in the 80s, and I have every time I come out here, I don't care what part of the state I go, even Eureka, even up there, Humboldt County.
I even like it when I go up there.
I haven't been up there in a long time.
Don't plan to go back, but I did like it when I was there.
This is EIB Network and L. Rush Ball with Broadcast Excellence.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist, reminding you, I make it look easy.
Don't try this at home.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Just love this, folks.
Two stories in the New York Times today, both by Robin Toner, headline optimistic, Democrats debate the party's vision.
And they have a companying story about one of the Democrats involved in a debate over the vision.
And the headline, Liberal of the Lost Generation Senses a Shift.
The drive-by media continuing with its obsession, getting the Democrats back in power.
By the way, this might be an excellent time for me to explain to you my latest mathematical formula, ladies and gentlemen.
I mentioned this in the previous hour.
Everybody is wondering, how can it be that the mainstream media, the drive-by media, is losing so much influence, and they are.
I mean, you see the newspaper circulation.
We had the numbers yesterday down.
TV ratings down compared to all-time highs back in the 80s.
There is a new media out there that consists of talk radio, Fox News, the blogosphere, and they don't have their monopoly anymore.
They don't have the automatic ability in one night to shape opinion on anything.
They used to have that power.
They don't any longer.
But despite the fact that they are losing influence, how at the same time are they able to do so much damage?
This requires a formula, much like Einstein had his theory of relativity.
E equals MC squared.
Because after all, admit it, this is a great question that you ask yourselves.
How can this possibly be?
It's the puzzle of the decade.
How can a drive-by media in such disrepute create so much negativity?
Employment is up.
Unemployment is down.
Retirement funds are up.
Household net worth is up.
Consumer confidence is up.
Home ownership is up.
Virtually every economic statistic that matters is up.
How can the reality be so good and the perception be so bad?
Well, much as Einstein had his theory of relativity, we here at the Limbaugh Institute have come up with our own theory of relativity for the mainstream media.
Here's the formula.
And we'll put this on the website so you can actually see it.
You can play around with it yourself.
Here's the formula as expressed.
MMI equals BS times T squared.
MMI equals BS times T squared.
Here's what the symbols in the formula mean.
MMI is mainstream media influence.
We could call it DBI, drive-by, well, DBMI, drive-by media influence.
BS equals, of course, B at Barbara Streisand.
And TIE, the T equals time and days.
So the formula is MMI equals BS times time squared, T squared.
Time squared, that is the media effect.
Day after day, gloom.
Day after day, pessimism.
Day after day, housing bubble.
Day after day, class warfare.
Day after day, high gasoline price, day after day, no future, day after day, your kids inheriting a giant deficit.
They'll never be able to have the life that their parents had.
Then they'll end little stories in the so-called evening news.
Did you lose your job today?
Will you lose your job tomorrow?
Will your neighbor lose his job tomorrow?
Did your neighbor lose his last three jobs during the Bush administration?
I'm not sure who said this.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Was that Joseph Goebbels?
Had to be a Nazi that did it.
If there was ever a need for the limbo theory of relativity, it is now, today, this time in our nation's history.
The drive-by media influence on the economy is one thing.
I mean, that's about money.
But that influence, the drive-by-media influence on the war on Islamofascism is another thing.
That's about lives.
That's about the future of civilization.
How can vital interests, national security and so forth, be turned into doom and gloom?
Easy.
MMI equals BS times T squared.
Times squared, day after day, bad news.
Day after day, if it bleeds, it leads.
Day after day, we don't want to take sides with America because we're not sure that America deserves to win because we're not sure that America is itself a just cause anymore.
And by the way, the Limbaugh theory, my formula here works just as well with our leadership.
We need a strong president to deal with the Iran problem.
We need a strong president to lead a flaccid United Nations, strong president, try to inspire a tired, worn-out Europe.
So how can this president with this economy and this domestic peace be so low in the polls?
MMI equals BS times T squared.
The BS is everything.
Everything he does is wrong.
Every decision he makes is wrong.
Every nominee he names is wrong.
Every time he speaks, it's wrong.
The Limbaugh theory of relativity explains it all.
It's not the criticism.
It's not the specific items mentioned.
It's the day after day after day after day after day of unceasing media attacks.
And I'll tell you, I have a theory also about Bush's approval numbers.
This business of being at 31% now doesn't make any sense.
If you measure this in terms that have always been used to define presidential popularity in the past, why, given this economy, his polls ought to at least be 50.
You'd have to subtract some because people are uneasy about the war and they're uneasy about, because we are fighting it in a minimalist way.
We could be done with this like we could have been done with Vietnam in a much shorter period of time.
We don't have the guts to do what it would take in one fell swoop to win, so we meander along.
And there are some other things, but the economy ought to be bringing this up, and it's not.
And if you look deeply in some of the most recent polls, you find that there are conservatives who are unhappy with Bush and Republicans, which I have always maintained.
And it's about agenda items.
It's about conservatism that's not being implemented or even fought for.
So there's that.
But I also think that there's a fatigue factor.
This administration has not done a whole lot to defend itself.
It has left that to others.
And I think there's a general fatigue among everybody.
You, I mean, you try to go out, you talk to people, people, what do you think of Bush's doing?
You get tired of trying to explain it.
Folks, I must admit, even I get tired sometimes having to defend this, but they don't seem to think it's necessary.
They think every news cycle has a lifespan.
It's going to end of its own, and they're going to sustain it if they respond to all this.
So there have been some exceptions to this during the course of the past six years, but there are a number of things.
But in terms of this 31%, which is the new low in whatever poll, or 35 or 36, in terms of this being an accurate representation of what people in this country actually think about Bush or about current economic circumstance, I don't think it's legitimate.
And I'm not saying it's being fudged in the polling.
It could be some of that.
We run into examples where polling companies have oversampled Democrats, for example, to achieve certain results that they want.
But there's something about this that just doesn't, it doesn't make sense in any of the ways that we have measured approval in the past.
So one of two things, either it is legitimate and there's a whole new way of measuring it that we haven't figured out or caught up to, or it's just gobbledygook and part of the oddball, kooky times in which we live.
Now, I've got to take a break here.
We'll come back and I'll share you the story with the New York Times about the Democrats once again meeting to debate the party's vision.
And I'll just give you a quick heads up.
When you print this story out, and I'm not suggesting you do this, that's why I'm here.
I will immerse myself in this garbage so that you don't have to.
I will synthesize it for you and spare you the frustration, the trouble, the anger of reading it yourself.
I can summarize this simply by saying, after four pages, they don't have a vision in a story headlined, optimistic Democrats debate the party's vision.
It's technically obvious when you finish this, they still don't have one.
Be right back.
Stay with us.
I'll tell you what, the gallery watching this program has just expanded.
People keep sneaking in there on the other side of the glass.
Great to have you all.
Hope you're having a great time.
Don't leave.
Rush Limbaugh back.
And rather than do the New York Times thing, I want to go to the phones.
People have been waiting patiently here, and I don't want to be too rude.
We'll go to Troy, New York.
Steve, I appreciate your patience, and welcome to the program.
Hey, Russ, with Russ Frangold and the new CIA chair in the news again.
I think it deserves revisiting the whole NSA meet scandal because he was asked how it hurt national security.
In fact, Alberto Gonzalez was asked in Senate testimony how exposing the fact that we're listening in on Al-Qaeda's calls hurt national security.
And what Alberto Gonzalez said was, well, if we keep reminding Al-Qaeda that we're listening to him, you know, they won't forget.
And they might forget if we stop reminding them.
And everyone roundly laughed at him.
So I wanted to get your take.
How did that leak hurt our national security?
How did the leak of the NSA foreign surveillance program compromise security?
Now, again, I'm having trouble understanding you because you're obviously on a cheap Radio Shack phone.
Could you explain what it did?
What again did Gonzalez say?
What Gonzalez said was that if we didn't have the media constantly reminding al-Qaeda that we are listening in on their telephone conversations, they might forget.
And even Republicans laughed at that.
That was his explanation for how the leak of the NSA.
Okay, I get it.
So your point is that these Al-Qaeda goons are smart enough to know that their calls are being monitored anyway, whether the United States admits it or not.
Well, really, Russ, what my question is, for you, how did this leak hurt our national security?
You can't be serious.
I very much am.
I already knew.
You can't be serious with this question.
Oh, please, Russ, inform me.
How did Telenai call Al-Qaeda that we are spying on them hurt our national security?
Did they not know that?
They got away with it prior to 9-11.
We found out all the phone calls that were going from all of those hijackers, well, three or four of them primarily.
Even Masawi was calling the paymaster and the moneyman and the organizer who happened to be in Dubai.
We knew that they were talking to people outside the country.
That whole event was planned on the phone with those hijackers in this country.
Oh, so today's a lot of people.
Wait a minute.
They got away with it once.
They got away with it once.
And you'd have to, probably you have to think that they don't know what our full capabilities are.
But if you really think that releasing the existence of that program, why don't we just release every spy program we have since everybody around the world is smart enough to figure out we're doing it anyway?
They didn't release it.
Under your theory.
Rush, they didn't release the capabilities.
And unless you're saying that Al-Qaeda is now using smoke signals and no longer talking on the phone, then what's your point?
They change phones all the time.
That's the point.
This program is pretty massive.
They use satellite phones.
They use cell phones, disposable cell phones.
They don't use the same phone number all the time.
It is very difficult to track because they are trying to be not caught.
We are trying to devise systems to get around every technique that they use.
The fact that we're doing it gets blown sky high.
Under your question or your theory about this, no spy program is worth it because everybody, every bad guy in the world knows we're probably spying on them.
And since it doesn't stop them from committing other acts, we may as well not even spy.
I mean, where do you take this logically?
I mean, the idea that the leak didn't do any damage is absurd.
I appreciate the call, though.
Joe in Salt Lake City, you're next.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Great.
Thank you, Rush.
Glad to be here.
Thank you, sir.
If I could take just two seconds to deviate from what I was going to say to rebuke your last caller, it seems to be unaware of the fact that when we were tracking Osama bin Laden, we were doing so effectively by cell phone until the media put out that we were tracking him by cell phone, at which point they stopped using it.
We lost track of him.
Just a little side note to his conversation.
Well, of course.
It's common sense here.
On my subject, in listening to your program, I just wanted to set the record straight a little bit on the whole foreign eavesdropping program.
People seem to have an impression that what happens is the president wakes up in the morning, waves a magic wand because he has carte blanche and says, that guy out there in the blue suit.
And by afternoon, we're listening into his conversation and know what pizza he's ordering.
And that's the image that the media wants to portray that Bush is some type of totalitarian history.
Yeah, but that's not how it happens.
I mean, that's what you're going to say, but it's not how it happens.
Of course not.
They have computers that are doing data mining, computers, keyword searching, listening in.
It's impossible for human beings to do all that's being done.
So it has to first be synthesized by a computer, and then after the computer kicks things out, that's when the human beings get involved.
Exactly.
And even if there was a direct need and they said, we want to listen to such and such person, first it has to go to the agency director for approval.
Then it goes to the Office of Policy and Review for approval.
Then he goes to the Attorney General for approval.
Then it goes to the Fisk Court.
And one of the media biases that they had was during Gonzales' confirmation.
They asked him how many of these requests are being denied by the Fisk Court.
And his answer was essentially, well, not many, if any, are being denied.
And that left the impression that anybody that gets picked for eavesdropping will be approved.
No, but there's no oversight.
The reality is many of those requests get denied before they ever get to the FISC.
So the Fisk Court doesn't really need to deny many of them.
They've gone through quite a filtering process.
I know, but you're right.
The whole thing has been miscast and mischaracterized as domestic spying with Bush personally.
He gets out of bed, like 9 o'clock in the morning, whenever he gets up, and goes over to the spy phone and chooses, okay, I'm going to listen into John Kerry today order chili at the ski lodge out in Idaho.
Bam, hits a button, and there's John Kerry on the phone.
Television shows and movies make it plausible for people to believe something like that happens.
This is such a massive, massive program of data mining via computer first.
And of course, the one thing that never gets mentioned in all this is our echelon system, which dwarfs this NSA business, this particular NSA program.
The echelon program monitors virtually everything worldwide, and it was implemented during the Clinton administration.
And there was already so much.
You can look at all these cameras that communities are putting at intersections to see if you ran a red light or didn't pay the toll at the bridge or what happens.
I mean, at some point, when does that become an invasion of privacy?
When is that spying and when is it not spying?
But this program has been so miscast by Democrats as domestic spying that has, they don't even allow that it is necessary or relevant, that the kind of spying going on is relevant to national security.
It is just plain, pure voyeurism by an administration who doesn't care about anybody's civil rights and human rights and that sort of stuff.
And that's why it's contemptible and irresponsible.
Blah, blah, blah.
Adam in Royal Oak, Michigan.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Mr. Rush Limbaugh, mega music lover dittos, it is a profound honor to speak with you, sir.
I'm a longtime listener and a first-time caller and a little nervous, so pardon me if I stammer a little bit.
But I want to say that I think that the Democrats and the liberals are really so out of touch because they view the war on terror and the war in Iraq, which is the same thing, as something that is just a matter of policy and it's unnecessary and that we should instead be opening up a dialogue with our enemies and that terrorism isn't as big as, say, that you did very well.
You said what you had to say in a limited amount of time.
Shakespeare said it.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
I think you did a good job of nailing where they are on this, at least publicly.
Be right back.
Nope.
Misreading the clock here again.
I'm sorry.
You have more time if you wish to embellish your programme.
I actually do.
Go right ahead.
If you compare World War II and the war on terror, I mean, the latter is much more of an immediate, direct threat.
And as you say, they cannot and they should not, the liberals, be trusted with leadership and power in this country until, well, ever, in my opinion.
So that's all they rush.
There's nothing they could do to redeem themselves in the area of leadership, in your mind?
I think in the immortal words of someone like Ann Wolter and maybe even yourself, the only thing they could do to redeem themselves is to become conservatives.
Yeah, or move.
Appreciate the call, Adam.
Thanks very much.
All right, we have to take a brief timeout, ladies and gentlemen.
Broadcast excellence continues in mere moments.
Won't be long, and we will be right back.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, as usual, half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
All right, this is just too delicious to pass up.
Optimistic, Democrats debate the party's vision.
How many meetings is this now that we know about?
They've probably had more meetings than we know about, but they write about a number of these meetings.
The media gets a drive-by beat to get so excited.
They pant like a bunch of rabbit dogs.
Democrats meeting again to discuss agenda and vision.
It's supposed to be heart-stopping, earth-shattering, stop the presses type event.
With Democrats increasingly optimistic about this year's midterm elections, that's right, because they're even referring to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker-to-B Pelosi, and optimistic about the landscape for 2008, intellectuals in the center and on the left are debating how to sharpen the party's identity and present a clear alternative to the conservatism that's dominated political thought for generations.
See, the first problem is getting intellectuals involved, these elites, these pointy heads that think they're smarter than everybody else in the room, if they can't figure out that they've already made clear that they are an alternative.
What do they think the Wellstone Memorial was?
What do they think their criticism of Bush for breathing is?
What do they think they have been doing for the last five years?
That's their problem.
They think they haven't gotten their message out, and they have.
Everybody knows who they are, what they stand for, and are getting bolder about showing that every day.
Many of these analysts, these intellectuals, both liberals and moderates.
No such thing as a liberal moderate, no such thing as a Democrat moderate in this meeting.
They are convinced the Democrats face a moment of historic opportunity.
The heavy breathing gets quicker paced.
They say that the country is weary of war and division and ready, if given a compelling choice, to reject the Republicans and change the country's direction.
They argue that the Democratic Party is showing signs of new health, intense party discipline on Capitol Hill, a host of policy proposals, and an energized base, which will be their ruination.
But some of these analysts argue that the party needs something more than a pastiche of policy proposals.
It needs a broader vision, a narrative, they say, to return to power and govern effectively what some describe as an unapologetic appeal to the common good.
Oh, that's what they came up with.
They get in the meeting room and they said, let's try the common good.
We need a broad vision.
This is recycled PAP.
It's recycled psychobabble, the common good.
Oh, that sounds wonderful.
Who could be against the common good?
But they need to describe this unapologetic appeal to the common good to big goals like expanding affordable health coverage and to occasional sacrifice for the sake of the nation as a whole.
What are high gas prices?
They've been asking us to sacrifice.
Hello, Shelby Steele.
We're back to this stigmatization, this guilt.
Why, we can't fight a war without sacrificing.
Why, we can't live without sacrificing.
Why, we are causing global warming.
We are causing death, destruction, and murder.
We are causing torture and humiliation.
We are destroying the ozone hall.
We must sacrifice.
That means raise your taxes.
It's just a new way of saying it.
This emerging critique reflects for many a hunger to move beyond the carefully calibrated centrism that marked the Clinton years, which was itself the product of the last big effort to redefine the Democratic Party.
You have to keep redefining yourselves.
It means that you're unafraid to be who you are.
You're afraid to be who you are.
You don't redefine yourself.
You are who you are.
The party's what it is.
This analysis is also in large part a rejection of the more tactical consultant-driven politics that dominated the party's presidential and congressional campaigns in the last six years, the emphasis on targeted issues like prescription drugs for retirees, careful constituent-based appeals.
Michael Tomaski, editor of the American Prospect, and this, folks, this publication, Provde West.
I mean, this American prospect, we've had our run-ins with some of these little clowns at American Prospect over the years.
It's fun to spark with these people, but I mean, there's no moderates there.
They might think they are, but they're not.
This guy, Tomaski, is then profiled in another story in the New York Times by the same writer that wrote this story.
This guy says that we don't have a philosophy, a big idea that unites our proposals and converts them from a hodgepodge of narrow and specific fixes into a vision for society.
A broader vision, many of these analysts say, will help the Democratic Party counter the charge so often advanced by Republicans that the Democrats are merely a collection of interest groups, labor, civil rights, abortion rights, and the like, each consumed with their own agenda rather than the nation.
And that's exactly what they are, and there's nothing they can do to change it.
That's who they've always been.
They are an amalgamation of individual constituency groups.
And getting these groups to unite on things is crazy.
Let me just, look, as I said, the sum total of this is there is no vision.
In four long pages here, Democrats debate the party's vision.
After four pages, they don't detail one.
There isn't one.
And the story really is a concession that they don't have a vision.
They had to meet to come up with one and they failed.
And that's a tremendous self-indictment.
What on earth is the purpose of a political party if not to propose a set of ideas that advance a vision of America?
For Democrats to concede they don't really know what they stand for is, well, it's nothing new, but it actually adds up to self-criticism.
Now, that party, Democratic Party, at least liberalism in the far left, is the source of energy and money for that party.
And they do have a vision.
The kook fringe base that animates this party, and it's getting it all in trouble, that's providing the fundraising and all of that.
This is what their vision is.
This is what they stand for.
Higher taxes, more regulations, larger government, abortion on demand, eliminating God from the public square, government control of health care, opposition to school choice, opposition to reforms for greater accountability and education.
They are for activist judges inventing law from the bench, often at the express, against the express will of the American people.
They resist and mock the concept of freedom spreading to the Arab world and other parts of the planet.
They are for cutting and running in Iraq.
They oppose the Patriot Act.
They oppose efforts by the president to intercept calls to and from al-Qaeda in this country.
That's what the liberal wing of the modern Democratic Party stands for.
And I would add a couple things to that.
Off the top of my head, you could add the fact that they have a genuine disgust for the country.
They abhor the United States military.
The trouble for the Democrats is that that party is the party of contemporary liberalism, and contemporary liberalism is so flawed that it cannot win national elections.
It doesn't have a prayer unless they mask it and camouflage it.
Now, there is a lot, this piece about the common good, the common good.
Sounds mighty high-minded.
Who can be against a common good?
But, you know, it's interesting to look at some of these ideas like the common good closer.
If liberals and Democrats want to promote the common good, there's a simple way that they could show us how to do it, or that they're serious about doing it.
And that is joining with the rest of us and unifying around the proposition that it is crucial to defeat Islamic fascism.
But as long as they are going to invest in our defeat in that war, and as long as they are going to suggest, as Feingold did at the National Press Club yesterday, that it is our fault partially that terrorists attack us, then I'm sorry.
All of their yabbering on about the common good is just a bunch of BS.
They don't care about the common good.
The common good will be whatever they define it to be within the concepts of them utilizing their power.
But I think the common good could be found in destroying these fanatics who want to torture and maim and kill millions and millions of people.
That's something it could do for the common good, but they're not interested.
How about liberating people from unbelievably sadistic and cruel dictators rather than sidling up to these dictators?
Their best buddies are Castro and Hugo Chavez.
And of course, President Wu of the Chikons.
They align with these people, particularly when Republican presidents are in office.
How about advocating tax and spend policies that lead to economic growth and prosperity?
Can't do that because they need victims.
My point is, all of this talk about the common good is as BS as everything else they're trying to sell.
They're not interested in the real common good.
They are interested in their power and then being able to exercise it in ways that maximize and cement their power.
How about drilling in NWAR?
They're out there whining and moaning about the high price of gasoline.
Can't go get our own supply, though.
Nope.
Why?
Got to protect the environment.
Why can't have any oil spills out?
Why, no, we can't let Bush and Cheney and Halliburton profit from going into NWAR anywhere.
Oh, we can't do that.
At the same time, we have to sit there and complain about big oil raping everybody when, in fact, most of the reasons that gasoline prices are going up can be found right in Washington, D.C. Republicans complicit in this too over the years, but the fact is if they're interested in the common good, there's a number of things we could do.
They're after energy independence.
A lot of things we could do to get closer to that that they themselves oppose, all the while telling us they care about the common good.
You know what I think this story is?
I think this story is a bunch of pollsters did a bunch of focus groups, and they told Democrats they have to come up with slogans that make it appear as if they're not beholden to pollsters and focus groups because the Democrats are known that they focus group and test lines and so forth.
So the pollsters said, they're on to us.
So you've got to come up with a vision here that doesn't sound like it comes from polling.
And lo and behold, the story ends up on the front page of the New York Times.
Sort of funny how that happens.
And I'll tell you, you know, folks, we Republicans, we conservatives, sometimes we get depressed, down in the dumps, frustrated and so forth.
But I'm going to tell you this.
This article and others that have preceded it, in which the Democrats are mightily struggling in vain to find out what they believe in, to come up with a vision, to come up with a way to explain what they believe in, reminds me that for all of our supposed problems, we are still the dominant philosophy in American politics.
We are the philosophy and the movement that has ideas.
We are honest.
We are willing to go to people and say, here, and we're proud to do it.
We flex our muscles.
We're concerned.
Yes, it's what I believe.
And you ought to believe it too, because it's the best thing for you and your family in the country.
We don't try to mask it, and we'll debate anything.
And we have all kinds of debates over ideas in the open within our movement and party.
We don't run around saying, who am I?
Why am I?
What do I believe?
Why am I here?
We don't go ask.
We're not into self analysis in that sense, in introspection.
We're not constantly asking people to figure out who we are as we try to figure ourselves out.
So this story is clear illustration that they're still lost, wandering aimlessly, haven't the slightest clue what to do because they know they can't be honest.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
All right, we're back on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, Rush Limbaugh in Los Angeles.
Let's go to San Diego.
Trent, glad you waited.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Great to talk to you.
Thanks for watching.
Thank you, sir.
I understand.
Get your take on watched on C-SPAN this morning.
They had a piece on a new book called With All Our Might.
Is it called With All Our Might, Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty?
That's correct.
That's the book.
And one of their points that really amused me and I thought was funny was they said that they want to take an active Democratic Party.
It was mostly a book giving the Democratic Party their talking points and direction.
And they wanted to start to spread democracy.
And they wanted to use the military as a part of that.
And they said that it was their idea first.
And that the reason why Bush isn't doing it very well is because it hasn't been a Republican idea for very long.
So they're going to be better at spreading democracy because they've had the idea for longer.
I didn't see this, but there's a little blurb about this in the Washington Times today.
Democrats, I'll just read it.
It's very short, what it says.
The book, by the way, is by Evan Bayh, Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana, Democrat and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, and 17 Democratic foreign policy wonks, analysts, and pollsters have written the book.
The book has 19 authors.
And it is With All Our Might Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty.
Here's one of the blurbs.
Instead of falling back on easy criticisms of the administration's blunders in Iraq, the new book argues that progressives should seize the moment by proposing a comprehensive agenda for winning the war against jihadist terrorism, an agenda rooted in the tough-minded internationalist tradition of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.
Yeah.
I don't want to.
Hello?
Yeah, go ahead.
Oh, I'm sorry.
One of the comments that Senator, was it Senator Bayh, is that correct?
Yeah, Senator Evan Bayh.
Senator Bayh.
His comment was, when we argue with the Republicans in the future, we don't need to get caught up in the details of our ideas.
We need to just show them the vision of the future, which, I mean, of course, all of us have the same vision of the future.
We all want happiness, freedom, all the good things.
The problem is how to get there.
And that's what he doesn't want to talk about.
Well, that's true.
I mean, my instinct was to disagree with you because I don't think we do agree on certain futures.
But if you're talking domestically, yeah, everybody does want.
Well, no, I used to say this myself.
When talking to a liberal, I'm going to change my mind about this because I actually now don't think that they think our vision of America is possible.
I don't think that they believe in a rising philosophy of prosperity and continued economic growth.
I think they are so guilt-laden and they're so obsessed with needing victims that they are more interested in convincing as many people as possible that their future is bleak.
They are not optimistic.
Now, these guys may be trying to turn that around a little bit, these 19 writers and so forth, but it sounds to me like it's just a rehash of John Kerry's campaign.
If you boil down the Kerry campaign, it was this.
Well, I can do it better, and I can do it smarter, and we need to be smarter.
And that's what these guys are saying.
We need a fine gold setup.
We need me to be smart.
I don't know where this comes from.
I guess it derives from their collective assumption that Bush is a dunce, though they know that's not the case.
But if they're going to go out and say that because of their predecessors, Roosevelt, you know what?
They would impeach Roosevelt today.
I know, Olamont.
We got to take a commercial break, folks.
Nobody has confidence in me to run my own show anymore because of yesterday.
Go ahead and take the break.
Go ahead.
Fastest three hours in media.
Two of them down.
We have one to go.
Sit tight and be patient.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
800-282-288.
▲
Export Selection